|
|
|
US appeals court sides with Trump in lawsuit involving hotel
Court News |
2019/07/03 12:51
|
A federal appeals court threw out a lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of illegally profiting off the presidency through his luxury Washington hotel, handing Trump a significant legal victory Wednesday.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the ruling of a federal judge in Maryland who said the lawsuit could move forward.
The state of Maryland and the District of Columbia sued in 2017, claiming Trump has violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by accepting profits through foreign and domestic officials who stay at the Trump International Hotel. The case is one of three that argue the president is violating the provision, which prohibits federal officials from accepting benefits from foreign or state governments without congressional approval.
In the case before the 4th Circuit, the court found the two jurisdictions lack standing to pursue their claims against the president, and granted a petition for a rare writ of mandamus, directing U.S. District Court Judge Peter Messitte to dismiss the lawsuit.
Trump heralded the decision in a tweet, saying, "Word just out that I won a big part of the Deep State and Democrat induced Witch Hunt." Trump tweeted that he doesn't make money but loses "a fortune" by serving as president.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In court, it’s red Texas vs. blue California in the battle over Obamacare
Court News |
2019/07/01 12:53
|
A lawyer for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton will be in a federal courtroom Tuesday asking three appellate judges to declare the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, and this time it will be with the full support of the Trump administration.
The U.S. Department of Justice earlier this year announced that the agency, like Paxton, believes the entire law should be struck down, reversing its previous position that certain sections, including a provision allowing states to expand Medicaid, should not be affected by the case.
Opposing them in Tuesday’s oral arguments at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will be lawyers for the U.S. House and 20 Democratic-led states who say striking down the law would wreak havoc on the health care system and put lives at risk.
The showdown will produce a decision that could give the U.S. Supreme Court another crack at deciding whether the 2010 law, a signature achievement of Democratic President Barack Obama, remains in effect.
At stake is health insurance for about 20 million Americans, either directly through the program sometimes called Obamacare or through expanded Medicaid coverage, as well as protection for millions more who have preexisting medical conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court strikes down ‘scandalous’ part of trademark law
Law Firm News |
2019/06/25 11:15
|
The Supreme Court struck down a section of federal law Monday that prevented businesses from registering trademarks seen as scandalous or immoral, handing a victory to California fashion brand FUCT.
The high court ruled that the century-old provision is an unconstitutional restriction on speech. Between 2005 and 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ultimately refused about 150 trademark applications a year as a result of the provision. Those who were turned away could still use the words they were seeking to register, but they didn’t get the benefits that come with trademark registration. Going after counterfeiters was also difficult as a result.
The Trump administration had defended the provision, arguing that it encouraged trademarks that are appropriate for all audiences.
The high court’s ruling means that the people and companies behind applications that previously failed as a result of the scandalous or immoral provision can re-submit them for approval. And new trademark applications cannot be refused on the grounds they are scandalous or immoral.
Justice Elena Kagan said in reading her majority opinion that the most fundamental principle of free speech law is that the government can’t penalize or discriminate against expression based on the ideas or viewpoints they convey. She said Lanham Act’s ban on “immoral or scandalous” trademarks does just that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Census, redistricting top remaining Supreme Court cases
U.S. Court News |
2019/06/23 11:16
|
The Supreme Court enters its final week of decisions with two politically charged issues unresolved, whether to rein in political line-drawing for partisan gain and allow a citizenship question on the 2020 census.
Both decisions could affect the distribution of political power for the next decade, and both also may test Chief Justice John Roberts’ professed desire to keep his court of five conservatives appointed by Republican presidents and four liberals appointed by Democrats from looking like the other, elected branches of government. Decisions that break along the court’s political and ideological divide are more likely to generate criticism of the court as yet another political institution.
In addition, the justices could say as early as Monday whether they will add to their election-year calendar a test of President Donald Trump’s effort to end an Obama-era program that shields young immigrants from deportation. The court’s new term begins in October.
Twelve cases that were argued between November and April remain to be decided. They include disputes over: a trademark sought by the FUCT clothing line, control of a large swatch of eastern Oklahoma that once belonged to Indian tribes and when courts should defer to decisions made by executive branch agencies.
But the biggest cases by far involve the citizenship question the Trump administration wants to add to the census and two cases in which lower courts found that Republicans in North Carolina and Democrats in Maryland went too far in drawing congressional districts to benefit their party at the expense of the other party’s voters.
The Supreme Court has never invalidated districts on partisan grounds, but the court has kept the door open to these claims. The court has struck down districts predominantly based on race. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
